SWITZERLAND

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:15 am**

In an effort to bring the hooverers in and the rest of the family back to life as the season grows nearer, I thought we all ought to enter questions for each day. Now that things seem to be on the road to recovery, I'm hoping to see my dear Switzerland wake up, its residents will rub the sleep out of their eyes and cheer for the new season! Shoot, I'm even looking forward to preseason!
Thankfully the opening game is at night, because this summer is frightfully brutal. We had that wonderful winter two years ago and have been paying for it ever since, sadly. Oh, and now we have White Fly. I've lived here all my life and (other than the palm tree disease that destroyed all our palm trees some 35 years ago) I've never seen anything this destructive--spreading so rapidly! We've lost most of our beautiful Birds of Paradise; our tangelo tree is on its way out; both our gorgeous gumbo limbo trees are covered...and so it goes. Sadness.

Now, for my question of the day. At first I thought I'd ask, "Is T.O. retiring or is he not?"--but two things stopped me. 1) Didn't we dance that dance over the past couple of years with another player? and 2) Who cares?

Then I thought I'd ask if everyone thinks the season will begin with no loss of games, but that's just so mundane and we've been asking that same question all summer...

I thought and thought and I don't know whether I over-thought the situation or what, but I ended up with this:

DOES ANYONE HAVE A GOOD QUESTION FOR OUR FIRST QUESTION OF THE DAY??? :lol:

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:37 am**

cklaurence wrote: Oh, and now we have White Fly. I've lived here all my life and (other than the palm tree disease that destroyed all our palm trees some 35 years ago) I've never seen anything this destructive--spreading so rapidly! We've lost most of our beautiful Birds of Paradise; our tangelo tree is on its way out; both our gorgeous gumbo limbo trees are covered...and so it goes. Sadness.

give this a look CK. http://www.arbico-organics.com/product/Live-Ladybugs I believe it just might help out your situation.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:42 am**

cklaurence wrote:Now, for my question of the day. At first I thought I'd ask, "Is T.O. retiring or is he not?"--but two things stopped me. 1) Didn't we dance that dance over the past couple of years with another player? and 2) Who cares?

1) yes we did do the dance and 2) probably a record T.O. can break!

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:51 am**

1) do you think Los Angeles will finally get another NFL team in the next few years?
2) will it be an expasion team or an existing team that needs to relocate?
3) If it's a relocation team, who?

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:29 pm**

1. I expect that there will be another attempt to put a team in LA, simply because the market is so large.
2. I think that they will move a team. Adding expansion teams while there are teams struggling would probably be unpopular.
3. According to the latest report that I could find, the Jaguars are the least valuable team. That would make them the most likely candidate if I had to do the buying.

Having said all of that, I don't know if any team will make money long term in Los Angeles. There is too much competition for entertainment. Besides, USC hires better players than any pro team can.

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:14 pm**

TryThinking wrote:
cklaurence wrote:Now, for my question of the day. At first I thought I'd ask, "Is T.O. retiring or is he not?"--but two things stopped me. 1) Didn't we dance that dance over the past couple of years with another player? and 2) Who cares?

1) yes we did do the dance and 2) probably a record T.O. can break!

Thanks so much, Try. When Peter gets home this afternoon, I'm going to show this to him. No doubt we'll be ordering a heavy duty # of ladybugs!

Posted: **Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:32 pm**

TryThinking wrote:1) do you think Los Angeles will finally get another NFL team in the next few years?
2) will it be an expasion team or an existing team that needs to relocate?
3) If it's a relocation team, who?

1) Yes indeedy, pumpkin seedy--I do believe there will be another NFL team in LA in the not-too-distant future.
2 and 3) I would hope there aren't any more extension teams, especially under the circumstances (as Em pointed out)--all of those owners crying poor. I haven't paid a lot of attention to $ and cents statistics, but I think Buffalo has some real problems! I would hate to see our division disturbed again--remember, we lost "Baltimore" to Indy years ago, but when a new team was brought into Baltimore, it was not put back into our division. As it is, we have one of the most volatile and combative divisions with just the 4 teams, I don't know what would happen if Buffalo was to pack up and leave as well. Buffalo does seem to be the 'poorest' of all the teams, though. That said, I dread the thought of them moving to Toronto and any further away than Toronto--the Buffalo fans would go wild (IMHO). The fans fill our stadium (as do the Jet and NE) when they play here. They are a passionate group--and I know that up close and personally, lol. It tickles me that Oakland sustains a team better than LA.
Regarding Em's thoughts on LA's competitive interests, I'd say it's not much different than Miami--right down to the popular college teams, and Miami seems to prove the rule that a pro team can survive and make money if the owner is rich enough (regardless of how stupid he or she is, how many mistakes he or she makes and how little they learn from those mistakes). Hmmmm, what was the question again? :lol:

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:04 pm**

Alrighteeee then. Back to the drawing boards. Doesn't look like my Question for the Day idea is the solution to generating some excitement here. Damn. Back to the drawing board... :idea:

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:28 pm**

I have an idea. Get the owners and Players Association to agree to a new contract. That should start a lot of talk.

Posted: **Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:32 pm**

cklaurence wrote:Alrighteeee then. Back to the drawing boards. Doesn't look like my Question for the Day idea is the solution to generating some excitement here. Damn. Back to the drawing board...

My question was yesterday, I don't see one for today :?:

~looks around~

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:52 am**

You are so right, Try (AND Em). I wish I could do something to make Em's idea a reality, but since I am powerless against the NFL and everyone/thing around it, I'll just ask a question for the day...

My question for today is:

AFTER (we should all live long enough to see it) EVERYTHING IS SETTLED, AND THE OWNERS AND PLAYERS AND EVERY OTHER FAT CAT INVOLVED IN THE NFL IS SATISFIED WITH THE SITUATION AND THE GAMES START AGAIN, DO YOU THINK THERE WILL BE A NOTICEABLE DROP IN ATTENDANCE, OR EVERYONE WILL BE SO HAPPY TO HAVE FOOTBALL BACK IN THEIR LIVES THAT THEY WILL RUN BACK IN RECORD NUMBERS?

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:21 am**

I think as we look around at all major sports right now, the greed factor has reached its breaking point both in the owners and players. It has become so commonplace that they all think they deserve more and more that it's become almost impossible for the average person to watch the games live. Due to this problem, I believe that the masses have started answering back with non-participation of the events at their venues and then choosing to watch them via the comfort of their homes. Bring on the 67" High Def TV and surround sound and you have the makings of a revolt of major proportion in live events. Yes there is the draw of being there live still, but at some point we have to say enough is enough and I think that is well on its way.

I thoroughly enjoy watching several games at the same time on my 67" screen....

Posted: **Sat Jul 02, 2011 8:12 am**

Busy week and haven't had time to keep up here. Soooo....
Basically I agree w/ everyone else:
Yes, the NFL will continue to push for a team in LA and I'm guessing it will be an existing franchise. Also agree it would likely be the Jaguars - weakest fan base and FL has 2 other NFL teams. Even though CA has 3 other NFL teams, LA is too big a market to not have a team. Not sure what a Jags move to LA would do the AFC South??? Also could be the Rams - back to LA due to family ownership 'issues'. And don't like the idea but wouldn't surprise me to see Buffalo move to Toronto :down:

No question the NFL has lost fans - I know some who never returned after the strike in the 80's so I'm sure some fans will not return this time. Game attendance??? Maybe a few of the weaker franchises but the successful teams will still likely sell out. But, some 'waiting lists' could get shorter....

Just my thoughts

Posted: **Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:10 pm**

I really wish I had the guts to give up my seasons tickets. I have been (as everyone here in Switzerland knows) really disappointed with the direction the franchise has gone in--year after year since Shula left the team. The JJ years were ruined because he placed Wannstadt in for his replacement and Huizenga did nothing to adjust for all his foolish errors. When they pushed Danny out, they just never seemed to find a way to get it right and bring the team back to the greatness we had come to expect in the early years (1970-1998). Perhaps we were just spoiled, but I think when a standard has been set, there's no reason that we should have thirteen straight years of disappointment. There was a lot to be said for Joe Robbie as an owner. He was no big spender, but he sure knew how to put the right personnel in place, from coaches to players. Too bad his family wasn't able to get along and keep the team... Regardless, I am hopelessly devoted, and can't imagine not having my wonderful seats from which to view the game. (Although, they keep up all the silliness in the stadium, from the Candyland paint-job to the Jimmy Buffet atmosphere, I just may grow disillusioned enough to say s'long to the seats...)

Who has the next question?

Posted: **Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:14 pm**

My guess is that most everyone is familiar with the Casey Anthony trial.

My question is:

1) Do you think she's guilty?

2) If so, do you think she will receive the *Death penalty ~ *Life imprisonment ~ *Lessor conviction and time?

3) Do you think that any of the family members whom have already been proven to have lied, will be subsequently tried for perjury?

4) If it were your child, would you have lied under oath to keep her from being given the death penalty?

Posted: **Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:58 pm**

I never watch trials, because I object to their being broadcast as entertainment. I will leave the judgments to the jury and the judge. The death of a child is a special tragedy. It is a worse tragedy when a parent is accused of the child's murder. The whole thing just makes me sad.

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:13 am**

Emeritus wrote:I never watch trials, because I object to their being broadcast as entertainment. I will leave the judgments to the jury and the judge. The death of a child is a special tragedy. It is a worse tragedy when a parent is accused of the child's murder. The whole thing just makes me sad.

I don't view them as entertainment, I think of them as judicial documentation. If they were not available to the public, (as all should be) we would have to just take a select few word for it that justice was done. With them we can see that sometimes it wasn't done as was the case in the OJ Simpson case. Everyone was able to see that justice was NOT DONE and a guilty man got off due to power wealth and other prevalent issues at the time. Fortunately karma caught up to the sorry bastard and he is serving at least some time in prison albeit not as much or for the original crime that no intelligent rational person would ever deny that he committed.

I personally enjoy watching real time reality, no matter the event. When it is as sad as a case of a mother killing her own child, it makes it all that much more intriguing. This young lady deserves the death penalty for what she did and yet tomorrow (actually today) the final statements will be made and it will be put in the hands of 12 people that the world is watching. 1 of which openly stated that she would never convict anyone of the death penalty. So there is much suspense and dramas still being played out like it or not, it's reality.

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:42 am**

I see that you have already decided that she is guilty. It was bad enough when people were tried in the newspapers, but it is much worse when they are tried on television. I hate "reality" shows in general. They are just human misery paraded for public amusement.

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:45 am**

Emeritus wrote:I see that you have already decided that she is guilty. It was bad enough when people were tried in the newspapers, but it is much worse when they are tried on television. I hate "reality" shows in general. They are just human misery paraded for public amusement.

"When it is as sad as a case of a mother killing her own child, it makes it all that much more intriguing."

Intriguing? That's like calling the Holocaust intriguing.

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:02 am**

1.) Yes

2.) Circumstantial evidence = Life imprisonment imo. But her not taking the stand and an inexperienced attorney could get her the death panalty.

3.) Not likely

4.) Tough one but no

The entire case :break:

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:12 am**

2 questions:

Only 2 teams didn't have players named to the 2011 Pro Bowl (original roster before injured and SB players were ruled out). One surprised me, one didn't. Which teams?

Most can guess which NFL team has the most consecutive playoff appearances

(only including the most recent playoffs) Which team is second?

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:35 am**

Emeritus wrote:I see that you have already decided that she is guilty. It was bad enough when people were tried in the newspapers, but it is much worse when they are tried on television. I hate "reality" shows in general. They are just human misery paraded for public amusement.

Well as you said, you don't and did not watch the trial. So since I and millions of others may have followed closely, yes I can make an informed opinion on what has transpired. That is akin to me being on the jury which happens to be our civil duty here in America. So if you believe it is bad for me to have an opinion due to the fact that I was sitting watching the trial via a television monitor versus a jury chair...... well that's why the question was asked in the first place.

"Reality" shows differ in my opinion from real life coverage. "Reality" TV shows (which I don't watch for the most part) are just paid actors exploiting a 15 minutes of fame syndrome. People who have (possibly) committed horrific crimes that have resulted in death or crimes on children is a far cry from those "Reality" actors. I personally haven't looked at murderers or rapists on TV as amusement, but we all have our own opinions.

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:41 am**

Emeritus wrote:
Emeritus wrote:
"When it is as sad as a case of a mother killing her own child, it makes it all that much more intriguing."

Intriguing? That's like calling the Holocaust intriguing.

That's a leap that most rational thoughts would not make.... I then guess because I'm a bald white male, I must be a white supremacist? :roll:

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:49 am**

Baglady wrote:1.) Yes

2.) Circumstantial evidence = Life imprisonment imo. But her not taking the stand and an inexperienced attorney could get her the death panalty.

3.) Not likely

4.) Tough one but no

The entire case

I agree with you on all of the same, however with the sentencing I would think she would get the death penalty if it didn't come down to the one jurist whom said that she would never give someone the death sentence. I don't know if she has changed her belief system on that even after the horrific evidence. i.e. internet search on how to break a child’s neck :cry:

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:13 pm**

Baglady wrote:2 questions:

Only 2 teams didn't have players named to the 2011 Pro Bowl (original roster before injured and SB players were ruled out). One surprised me, one didn't. Which teams?

Most can guess which NFL team has the most consecutive playoff appearances (only including the most recent playoffs) Which team is second?

Good question

I don't know for sure so my guess would be Tampa & Carolina :?:

I'm a bit confused on the second part of the question, could you rephrase it?

Posted: **Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:14 pm**

TryThinking wrote:
Baglady wrote:2 questions:

Only 2 teams didn't have players named to the 2011 Pro Bowl (original roster before injured and SB players were ruled out). One surprised me, one didn't. Which teams?

Most can guess which NFL team has the most consecutive playoff appearances (only including the most recent playoffs) Which team is second?

Good question I don't know for sure so my guess would be Tampa & Carolina
I'm a bit confused on the second part of the question, could you rephrase it?

Tampa & Carolina both had players in the Pro Bowl although Tampa's only represnetative, D Penn was an injury replacement. Was surprised to see Carolina had 3 players

I can tell you one is an AFC team, the other an NFC team.

Confused on the 2nd question :?:

What I was trying to ask is which NFL team has the most consecutive (active) seasons appearing in the playoffs. This refers to the 12 teams which made the 2009 NFL playoffs. Colts have 9 consecutive appearances (can you spoiled fans...), there are actually 2 teams tied for 2nd having 3 consecutive playoff appearances and might surprise you - but maybe not. Hope that helps clarify :idea:

Posted: **Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:56 am**

So as I see it, our most recent question of the day is directed to Bagsy and it is: "Would you please explain the second part of your last question?" :?:

Carry on! Love to all my Swissies!

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:20 pm**

Maybe I should call this question for the week:
Where the heck is everybody???"

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:00 pm**

We're all sitting around waiting for something to happen, ck. When there's some news to talk about, I expect that people will show up. The negotiations might as well be taking place on Mars, for all that we hear about them.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:30 pm**

cklaurence wrote: So as I see it, our most recent question of the day is directed to Bagsy and it is: "Would you please explain the second part of your last question?" Carry on! Love to all my Swissies!

CK, actually it was my 2 part question that I was trying to clarify for TT

No need to drag it out any longer.... I asked firstly which 2 teams had NO players in the most recent Pro Bowl. It was Cincinnati (no surprise there) and Seattle (kind of a surprise...) and secondly, which 2 teams are tied behind the Colts for most consecutive current playoff appearances - that would be the Eagles and Ravens at 3 each. Just a couple of things I heard on the NFL channel recently.

Think I'll let someone else pose the next question. :roll:

Have to wonder if we'll see a labor agreement ratified at the owners meeting July 21??? Seems the revenue split and rookie wage cap are agreed upon but still 'negotiating' FA restrictions and I think retired players benefits - from what I've read. With $60 mil in revenue per preseason game I'd think it'll get done this week. Hope so...

Happy Friday all :up:

~

SWITZERLAND

QUESTION FOR THE DAY

QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY

Re: QUESTION FOR THE DAY